Monopoly Law
 
Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP

This is an appeal from a judgment against a general partner for wrongful dissociation, breach of a noncompete clause, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations or business expectations, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil conspiracy. We vacate the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROU... More...
   $0 (10-21-2009 - ID)

David D. Beal, et al. v. David A. McGuire, et al.

Six members of a joint venture sued two other members, primarily claiming breaches of fiduciary duties. The joint venture, most of whose members were Anchorage physicians, owned a medical services condominium on Laurel Street and leased it out for use as an ambulatory surgical center. The plaintiffs claimed in part that the joint venturer defendants and others were liable for moving the surgical c... More...   $0 (10-08-2009 - AK)

Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango

To provide Durango, Colorado, residents and Southern Ute Indian tribe members with greater access to kidney dialysis and other nephrology services, Mercy Medical Center, a non-profit hospital, together with the tribe, sought to entice Dr. Mark Bevan to join the hospital’s active staff. When Dr. Bevan declined, the hospital hired somebody else. To convince that physician and others to settle in D... More...   $0 (09-30-2009 - CO)

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Prometheus”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 04-CV-1200, 2008 WL 878910 (S.... More...   $0 (09-17-2009 - CA)

Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.

This is a patent case. Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868 (“the ’868 patent”), 5,547,933 (“the ’933 patent”), 5,618,698 (“the ’698 patent”), 5,756,349 (“the ’349 patent”), and 5,955,422 (“the ’422 patent”). The patents relate to the production of the protein erythropoietin (“EPO”) using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”)... More...   $0 (09-15-2009 - )

Maryland Department of Transportation v. Gregory Maddalone

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...
   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

Maryland Department of Transportation v. Gregory Maddalone

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...
   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc.

We venture into the world of motocross racing to determine whether federal trademark law protects a motorcycle apparel company’s use of a stylized “O” on its products. ONE INDUSTRIES v. O’NEAL DISTRIBUTING 11599

I

A

Motocross is a popular form of off-road, rough terrain motorcycle racing. Jim O’Neal Distributing, Inc. (“O’Neal”), is a leader in the industry. Fo... More...
   $0 (08-24-2009 - CA)

Minneapolis Taxi Owners v. City of Minneapolis

In 2006, the City of Minneapolis (the “City”) amended its taxicab ordinance to uncap the number of transferable taxicab licenses it issues, thereby opening a previously restricted market. The Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition (the “Coalition”), a group comprising holders of approximately seventy-five transferable taxicab licenses, sued the City, asserting federal and state constitutional v... More...   $0 (07-14-2009 - MN)

Qwest Corporation v. Arizona Corporation Commission

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Act” or “1996 Act”), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in part at 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-261, 271), created a complex federal scheme to encourage competition in local telephone service markets previously dominated by state-sanctioned local exchange carrier monopolies. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371-72, 377-80 (1999). Sections 251 and... More...   $0 (06-08-2009 - AZ)

Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.

This appeal is about whether the plaintiff, Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc., using antitrust statutes drafted in the late 19th century, has successfully stated claims in connection with the administration of the Internet domain name system, so essential to the operation of our sophisticated 21st century communications network. The district court ruled that the plaintiff failed. With the ben... More...   $0 (06-05-2009 - CA)

Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al.

In this case, the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,935,507 (the ’507 patent), occasions litigation in both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Virginia District Court granted the motion of Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively Lupin) for summary judgment of noninfring... More...   $0 (05-18-2009 - VA)

Partner & Partner, Inc. v. Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, et al.

Plaintiff Partner & Partner, Inc., appeals from the district court’s decisions (1) granting summary judgment to defendants ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Michigan Fuels, Inc., on the breach of contract, antitrust, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships claims; and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to assert new claims of fraudu... More...   $0 (05-04-2009 - MI)

J.R. Simplot, et al. v. Chevron Pipeline Company, et al.

J.R. Simplot Company, Simplot Phosphates, LLC, and Simplot Pipeline, LLC (collectively “Simplot”) sued Chevron Pipeline Company, Chevron Chemical Company, and Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (collectively “Chevron”) for failure to defend and indemnify Simplot pursuant to two sales agreements. Chevron denied its liability and asserted counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favo... More...   $0 (04-24-2009 - UT)

Marcella McGrath v. SNH Development, Inc., & a.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by ... More...   $0 (04-08-2009 - NH)

Christy Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Company, Ltd.

When the Deer Valley Resort Company (“DVRC”) was developing its world-renowned ski resort in the Wasatch Mountains, it sold parcels of land within the resort village to third parties, while reserving the right of approval over the conduct of certain ancillary businesses on the property, including ski rentals. For about fifteen years, DVRC granted permission to Cole Sports and plaintiffappellan... More...   $0 (02-28-2009 - CO)

Beatrice C. Romero and Michael Ferree v. Philip MOrris, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.; Lorillard Tobacco Co.; Liggett Group, Inc; and Brooke Group, Ltd.

{1} This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of cigarettes sold in New Mexico. We affirm the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Liggett and Lorillard; we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and ... More...   $0 (02-27-2009 - NM)

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratoties, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) sued Defendants-Appellees Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Geneva Pharmaceuticals (“Geneva”) for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and analogous provisions of California law. Kaiser brought a claim under Section One of the Sherman Act against both Abbott and Geneva, and a claim under Section Two against only Abb... More...   $0 (01-15-2009 - CA)

Sophie Bubis v. Jack Kassin and Joyce Kassin

This appeal involves the applicability of the public trust doctrine to private oceanfront property the owners maintain exclusively for their own recreational enjoyment.

In 1995, defendants Jack and Joyce Kassin bought an oceanfront property in the Village of Loch Arbour that the previous owners had operated as a commercial beach club. This property has approximately 650 feet of frontage al... More...
   $0 (12-11-2008 - nj)

Native American Distributing, a division of Flat Creek Cattle Co., Inc. and John Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company, an enterprise of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; LEROY HOWARD, an individual; FLOYD LOCKAMY, an individual; RICHARD WOOD

Plaintiffs Native American Distributing and John Dilliner filed suit in federal court against the Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company (“SCTC”), which is an enterprise of the Seneca-Cayuga Indian Tribe, and three individuals who had been officers of SCTC (the “Individual Defendants”). SCTC and the Individual Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that the ... More...   $0 (11-20-2008 - OK)

South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District

¶1 South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. (South West) appeals from a grant of summary judgment on its taking and tort claims against the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (the District). Based on our decision in West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 200 Ariz. 400, 26 P.3d 1171 (App. 2001), Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 45-173 (1994), and Arizona’s ... More...   $0 (11-12-2008 - AZ)

Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al.

This case involves alleged infringement by Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”), Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and Dell Inc. (“Dell”) of two patents owned by Lucent Technologies, Inc. (“Lucent”). After a jury verdict of infringement and a damages award of $1,538,056,702, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), and alternatively a new trial, on infringement ... More...   $1500000000 (09-26-2008 - CA)

Danvers Motor Co., et al. v. Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company appeals the certification of a class of Ford dealers in an action alleging violations of the Robinson- Patman Act, the Automobile Dealer’s Day in Court Act, and numerous state franchise laws, as well as breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We hold that the prerequisites for a class action are not met in this case. Accordingly we will vacate the o... More...   $0 (09-12-2008 - NJ)

Michael McKee v. AT&T Corporation

Michael McKee filed this class action suit, alleging AT&T wrongly charged him (and others) city utility surcharges and usurious late fees. When the Chelan County Superior Court found the dispute resolution provision of AT&T's Consumer Services Agreement unconscionable and denied its motion to compel arbitration, AT&T appealed. The Court of Appeals, Division Three, certified the case to this ... More...   $0 (08-31-2008 - WA)

Kenin L. Edwards, et al. v. The City of Henry

On January 24, 2007, plaintiff Kenin L. Edwards filed a single-count, pro se complaint against defendant City of Henry, requesting damages for alleged violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act (Act) (740 ILCS 10/1 et seq. (West 2006)). The City filed a "Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions" claiming immunity under the Act (740 ILCS 10/5(15) (West 2006)) and alleging that plaintiff lacked a good-fait... More...   $0 (08-19-2008 - IL)

Next Page

Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: